Ask something about England.

Genetically modified crops and food are enduring topics in the British media. Like the Iraq war.

This kind of incident only occupies a temporary scenery, and gradually dies out as soon as the war is over. Transgenic problems can be avoided.

When I lived in London, I often felt that if I had a newspaper, TV or internet every week.

There is little news about genetically modified crops on the internet, which is surprisingly calm. Large chain supermarket

Everyone claims that their brand products do not use genetically modified agricultural products as raw materials, even KFC fast food restaurants in backstreet.

Specially posted a notice to ensure that our products never contain genetically modified ingredients. Considering that KFC comes from the first turn in the world.

It may be necessary for the United States, a big country of genetically modified food, to make such a statement, although I want to see this notice every time.

"Nothing, I don't care at all"-in contrast, I am more worried about the health of high-fat fried food.

This species is unfavorable.

However, I don't care. Americans don't seem to care, but many British people care. In the supermarket.

Shopping and chatting with people, I once heard an old British lady criticize this "unnatural thing" and praise "you"

Organic food "(British people call agricultural products without chemical fertilizers and pesticides organic food, that is," organic food "

Product ",much more expensive than ordinary food. I always thought that in terms of the original meaning of the word "organic", this

Names really have no meaning. Although I have always been inclined to support genetically modified foods and even friends since I wrote the article.

I joked that I had "media bias", but in this case, I really didn't have the courage to explain to the old lady at the beginning.

Because of principle or denying the authority of God, we can only be passive, and at best, we can carefully defend "not yet."

Evidence that genetically modified food is harmful to human body ... "... Faced with such a public, they are bent on promoting genetically modified food.

Blair's government, which grows crops commercially, naturally feels more troubles and headaches.

Both sides of the Atlantic

The first transgenic plant in the world was born in 1983, which is an antibiotic-resistant tobacco. 199

In 3 years, a tomato with slow softening and long shelf life became the first commercial tomato in the United States and even the world.

Planting genetically modified crops. 1996, genetically modified tomato sauce first appeared on the shelves of British supermarkets.

Also in this year, Monsanto put herbicide-resistant soybeans on the market, and Europe approved the import. Soon,

From potato chips to pasta, genetically modified ingredients appear in many foods on the British market. If you count.

Some animal meat products are fed with genetically modified corn or soybeans, and there are more kinds of genetically modified foods. Britain, England

Some cheeses that people like to eat also use genetically modified chymosin.

With the arrival of genetically modified food, there have also been voices and ideas against genetically modified food, and the European public suddenly made a fuss.

Nowadays, GM is not something that has nothing to do with itself, such as "Greenpeace protests in a distant country".

From 65438 to 0998, the EU suspended the approval of new genetically modified agricultural products, forming a de facto "genetically modified ban".

It has deepened the public's impression that "genetically modified foods have problems" (although, considering the agricultural competition in the EU,

Weaker than the United States, there is a serious surplus of agricultural products, and the annual agricultural subsidy expenditure is huge.

Resentment in commodity trade is not attributed to such simple labels as "nature", "environmental protection" or "health"

Na)。 There is a lot of resistance, especially in Britain.

At present, the planting area of genetically modified crops in the United States is 39 million hectares, ranking first in the world, followed by

Argentine13.5 million hectares, Canadian 3.5 million hectares, China 265,438+10,000 hectares, universities in Latin America and Australia.

Australia and some other countries in Asia and Europe have sporadic cultivation. The crop with the highest "transgenic degree" is soybean.

It accounts for more than half of the total soybean planting area in the world, followed by cotton, corn and rape. But genetically modified crops

Commercial cultivation has not yet developed in Europe, and only Germany and Spain have developed a little so far.

Just try it. In Britain, the government has worked hard for several years, but it has not improved the domestic public opinion environment.

Field trips are often destroyed by opponents' attacks.

Hot political potato

The British Labor Party 1997 won the general election and came to power with a fresh and energetic image. predecessor

Things once went to interview the annual meeting of the two parties before the election, saying that the atmosphere was really different and the Conservative Party was getting worse.

At the end of one's tether, the Labour Party is full of excitement and determined to win, and it can be seen at a glance who will win. After Blair came to power,

There are indeed some achievements in maintaining economic stability, enhancing international influence and developing scientific research and education.

He was re-elected in 2002. On the two typical issues of biotechnology and euro, and the conservative attitude of the Conservative Party.

In contrast, the Labour Party is indeed more open and pragmatic. The government has never concealed its support for biotechnology.

Attach importance to it and hope it will become an important means to enhance the competitiveness of British science and technology and economy. But developing genetically modified agriculture

Our efforts were particularly unsuccessful.

The first wave of "transgenic frenzy" in Britain appeared in 1998. That autumn, I worked in Sue.

Pusztai, a scientist at Glenn Reuters Institute, claimed in a TV documentary that one of his projects had not been sent.

The table shows that the kidney, spleen and digestive tract of young rats are damaged after eating transgenic potatoes 10.

The immune system has also been destroyed, and it is genetically modified ingredients that destroy the immune system. I'm already interested in genetic modification

The European public, which is quite nervous, feels that the predicted disaster has finally come, and the British public opinion is even more stunned. those years

The EU's decision to restrict genetically modified products is related to this matter. 48 hours after Putty disclosed it, that is,

Because of the "insufficient evidence" of this research, he was temporarily suspended from the institute and forced to retire soon. 1999

In February 2006, scientists from 14 countries claimed to include genetic engineering experts, toxicologists and medical scientists.

Twenty scientists issued a joint statement in support of Platts. This is a conspiracy set by Platts.

The tragic heroic image of the victims has become the object of special coal speculation, and the government's genetically modified policy has been under unprecedented pressure.

Force.

At the same time, Lord sainz Burry, Minister of Science, was involved in another genetically modified dispute, which was also within the scope of the government's investigation.

Cover it. Sainz Burry is accused of holding shares in biotech enterprises, which exist as government officials.

Conflicts between public and private interests. Sainz Berry immediately issued a statement saying that the company did own genetically modified food.

A patent related to a key gene, but his interest in it and his large supermarket chain in Britain-

-sainsbury supermarket shares in sainz, when entering the government to the secret.

Independent trustees can't ask themselves. In addition, although he is a member of the cabinet biotechnology Committee, he

In the future, I will not participate in the government's decision-making and discussion on genetic modification, nor will I participate in anything that affects the profit of Seth Supermarket.

A useful decision.

At this point, Blair resisted the pressure of public opinion and issued a statement expressing confidence in the integrity and justice of the Minister of Science, and went on to say

Continue to support genetically modified foods. He said that it is "extremely stupid" to ban genetically modified foods and eat genetically modified foods.

Food is not worried about affecting health. This is reminiscent of a few years ago when the Conservative Party was in power.

During the mad cow disease crisis, the Minister of Agriculture ate beef hamburgers with his daughter in public to show the safety of British beef.

Calm the public mood. But the effect of Hamburg show is not good. Mad cow disease is the most serious in Britain in recent years.

The disaster left a very bad memory for the public. This time, the Prime Minister set an example by eating genetically modified food, just like-

Perhaps more-lack of attraction.

Or the scientific community eased the crisis. In May of that year, the Royal Society announced that it had organized

After a detailed assessment by a six-member expert group, Putty's research on genetically modified potatoes is full of loopholes and cannot be used for reference.

Draw any scientific conclusion that genetically modified food is harmful to health. Platts' research has not been peer-reviewed.

The discussion was not published in academic magazines, but first announced to the media, and later became a hot topic.

This topic was published by the medical journal The Lancet for discussion, but it was not recognized. The so-called 20

Scientists have also been revealed to be closely related to Platts' past, and it is doubtful whether their statements are objective and fair. Although this

The negative impression of genetically modified foods on the public in the potato storm cannot be completely eliminated, but at least, environmental organizations are

When declaring that "genetically modified foods may be harmful to health", we can't take this as a fact.

During the crisis, Blair strongly claimed that the government should resist the "falsehood" of the media and the Conservative Party.

Good and complete opportunism ",and lamented that he was" exhausted "by the current GM debate.

Gas ",complaining that most people just take it for granted and don't discuss it on the basis of full understanding. if

He knows that this issue will be debated like this for several years, depending on the situation, until the end of his second term.

Maybe he will feel discouraged too early.

Caterpillar and corn field

There are three main reasons why people oppose genetically modified food: 1) Genetically modified food may be harmful to human body.

Harmful to health, such as containing unexpected toxic substances or new allergens. 2) It can produce insecticidal toxin by itself.

Genetically modified crops may poison other non-pest organisms. 3) Transgenic crops may be related to wild parents.

The hybridization of related crops causes "genetic pollution". It's just that these three aspects are well known, but

The unconvincing and even oolong research is related to potatoes, caterpillars and corn respectively. Among them is Pustai.

Potatoes are no longer mentioned as an argument. So far, no other research shows that genetically modified foods are harmful to health; beautiful

People in China have been eating genetically modified food for more than ten years, and have never seen anything important. After the DNA in food enters the human body,

Will decompose, whether it is a "natural" or a transferred gene, the outcome is the same, which is harmful to health.

Believing in the nucleic acid nutrition of "eating genes to supplement genes" and worrying that eating genes will cause problems are equally unfounded.

As for the control of allergens, the developers of genetically modified crops have taken this into account, not from those aspects that are easy to cause.

Extract the genes that need to be transferred from sensitive foods. Genetically modified foods have to go through stricter procedures than traditional foods.

Toxicity and allergy tests. If properly managed, genetically modified foods are not more likely to cause allergies than ordinary foods.

At present, the transgenic corn planted is transformed from Bt jointly developed by Novartis in Switzerland and Monsanto in the United States.

Genetic corn is the most. It is implanted with genes from bacteria, which can effectively kill the pest corn borer.

Protein. But will it also affect other insects? 1999 may, Cornell university, USA

Entomologist john rossi and others reported in the British journal Nature that they had found Bt transgenic jadeite.

Rice pollen is harmful to the larvae of monarch butterflies in the United States, which live on the leaves of sonchus oleraceus coated with Bt transgenic corn pollen.

Caterpillar, stunting and high mortality. This is regarded as evidence that genetically modified crops harm the ecological environment, the king of America.

Butterflies have suddenly become the signboard of environmental organizations opposed to genetic modification. But some scientists immediately pointed out that in this study,

The laboratory environment is very different from the natural environment. In nature, the concentration of transgenic pollen is far from the experimental strip.

It's so high, and monarch butterfly larvae in natural environment don't eat corn pollen. French national agronomy research

After more than two years' research by scientists from the University of Minnesota, the institute officially published a paper in 2002.

It is pointed out that monarch butterfly larvae are not poisoned by Bt corn pollen in nature. In addition, in traditional agriculture,

Farmers should spray a lot of pesticides to control corn borers, because corn borers are more likely to harm other insects.

Another story about corn took place in Mexico. This is the hometown of corn, and the local people grow corn.

It has a history of thousands of years. Up to now, there are many kinds of wild corn in Mexico, which is called the corn capital of the world.

Similar centers. In order to protect this important natural resource, Mexico has temporarily banned planting since 1998.

Planting genetically modified corn. 200 1 1 1, two books of University of California, Berkeley, USA.

Economists published an article in Nature magazine, saying that genetically modified corn has "invaded" Mexico and polluted the local area.

Corn varieties. They compared the samples of wild corn collected in Oaxaca, Mexico, with those of Monsanto in the United States.

Comparing the genetic corn with the natural corn that will not be polluted, it is found that some wild corn samples are affected by

The pollution of DNA fragments of transgenic corn was analyzed. It is said that these DNA appear in the maize genome.

Location, may destroy the function of other genes. Researchers speculate that the pollution comes from food aid in the United States. everywhere

This incident caused a heated debate. Opponents of genetically modified crops naturally claim to have found evidence of genetic pollution.

However, some scientists question the reliability of this study and think that the technology used to amplify DNA samples in the experiment.

There is something wrong with the operation, and the result is illusion. Two researchers provided new data, but they still couldn't convince the public.

It is estimated that natural editors are also afraid. In April 2002, the magazine officially admitted that it was now.

There is evidence that "it is not enough to show that it is appropriate to publish the original paper", and the two authors support their new conclusion.

This paper is published at the same time as two other articles questioning this research, so that readers can judge for themselves. This magazine is doing just that.

Publication 133 is extremely rare in history.

Leave me alone, your highness.

There are many anti-GMO organizations active in the UK, including internationally renowned green and

Ping organization, a powerful "Nature Britain" organization (it is a government adviser on wildlife issues),

Friends of the earth, they often appear in the media, organize protests, and so on. There are also some drastic countermeasures.

On the other hand, almost every year I wear a white coat like a disinfection suit and rush into the experimental field to eliminate genetically modified crops.

Protest, although judges usually don't hold them accountable for "protecting the environment".

Liability for damaging other people's property. In these people's minds, genetically modified crops have been completely demonized, even

Experiments are not allowed. They like to attract public attention with extreme images, such as a lush field.

In the movie, a god of death in a black robe holds a scythe with a bloody front. Such a big picture is placed on the front page of the newspaper.

It's really visually impactful. However, it may not be them who are most likely to be recognized by the British public.

It's Prince Charles.

Although he has done enough to become the protagonist of lace news and the foil of fairy tale princess, people in Britain are still looking forward to Prince Charles.

It's extraordinary. He is very concerned about environmental issues and scientific issues, although it seems to some people.

Maybe he'd better not care. And my sister, who was invited to give an opening speech at the annual meeting of the British Association for the Advancement of Science.

Princess Anne is different. When Prince Charles talks about science, religion is often more important than science, and he often gets into trouble.

Scientists are very unhappy. He is the most prominent and active person in Britain who opposes genetically modified food.

One. When I first arrived in England, my brother took me to the supermarket to buy food. When he explained to me what organic food was, he said

Until Prince Charles opposed genetic modification and strongly advocated organic food, his farm planted and sold organic products.

It is said that although it is expensive, it "sells well". I was a journalist at that time, and I suspected that there was one of them.

There are some interesting reasons.

In any case, Prince Charles' propaganda interacted with the British public's emotions, and the effect was very strong.

Yes-even if it is such a stupid thing as "Never eat any food containing DNA", he said it on TV.

There will still be a market. 1April, 999, he authorized the BBC to publish his own anti-GMO article.

Zhang said that he understands that gene technology will bring great benefits in medicine, agriculture and environment, but there are more.

Expressing concern about health and environmental damage, and expressing the genetic material of species that cannot naturally hybridize.

Quality mixed together, violated the "exclusive domain of God". In May 2000, Prince Charles was in BB.

In a lecture on sustainable development by C, modern science was criticized, among which nature is indispensable.

In order to attack genetically modified food, praise how "natural" organic agriculture is. This makes many scientists feel dissatisfied.

Richard Dawkins, an evolutionary biologist and popular science writer, published an open letter, the wording of which made him stay away from it.

The king who came here was very unfriendly. Dawkins said that science does not believe in intuition, and agriculture has been like this since its birth.

The behavior of human intervention and species selection is not a "natural" thing, if it is fun.

Emperor, we have played God for centuries. He also said that excessive attention to genetically modified crops may exist.

Risk will distract people's attention and drown out some real dangers that need to be solved in "transgenic, transgenic"

Gene, transgenic, transgenic, transgenic, transgenic! “(GM GM GM GM GM GM GM！ ) fanaticism.

Chinese (see this issue of Don't Reject Science).

Dawkins finally recommended Charles to read carl sagan's book The Devil Is Out.

A world without science: candles that illuminate the darkness. I wonder if he did it-I don't think so.

Yes His attitude seems to have not changed at all. In June 2002, Charles accepted a private group in Germany.

When the organization awarded the environmental protection award, it also talked about the dangers of genetically modified crops. The next day, the British royal family

Patrick batson, vice chairman of the association, told the media rudely that the prince's attitude towards genetic modification is completely

"The performance of hysteria". He said that so far there is no evidence that genetically modified crops are harmful, Charles.

Hysteria "made me lose the right to buy products". The British royal family can't stand Charles.

Practice, it is said that the queen talked to him about this, and her sister Princess Anne and her father Prince Philip were in the media.

It is wrong to publicly criticize him for not being an expert in biology.

GM GM GM GM GM GM GM！

Government, scientific community, biotechnology companies, environmental protection organizations, celebrities and the public are composed of these aspects.

The tug-of-war on genetic modification has never stopped in the British media. In July 2003,

The European Parliament passed new regulations on genetically modified foods, and the freezing policy of genetically modified foods showed signs of breaking ice in the past five years.

At this point, the "discussion on genetically modified countries" organized by the British government is as popular as the Prime Minister's strategy.

The group published a report saying that in the long run, genetically modified crops will promote the economic development and public health in Britain.

There is great potential, but the benefits of genetically modified agriculture will not be reflected in the short term; Transgenic crops can be obtained in the future.

What kind of income depends on the attitude of the public and the ability of management institutions to deal with uncertain factors.

1999165438+1October, the British government decided not to consider the commercial cultivation of genetically modified crops for the time being.

At the same time, large-scale scientific experiments were carried out to investigate the impact of genetically modified crops on local environmental biodiversity. simple

Frankly speaking, it is the impact on weeds and insects in farmland. The test report was released on June, 2003 10.

It will provide an important basis for the government to consider whether to ban the commercial cultivation of genetically modified crops in 2004. Report to the public

Before the cloth, public opinion statistics showed that the situation was not optimistic. It is said that in the big discussion from June to September, 40,000 copies were published.

The response shows that only 2% of Britons are happy to eat genetically modified food, and 86% are determined not to eat it. At 1

10 13, opponents also held a protest March in London. They walked from the headquarters of the National Farmers' Association to Downing Street.

And the Ministry of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. In order to attract attention, parade

There are some maverick guys: an organic farmer from northern Scotland dragged it with a bicycle.

A coffin; A writer walked from North Yorkshire to London.

The experimental results were unexpected: neither good nor bad, but good and bad. this

So far, the world's largest similar experiment has cost 5.5 million pounds, using the number of England and Scotland.

Hundreds of farmland, involving crops including genetically modified rape, sugar beet and corn. Scientists conducted a study on the experimental field.

In 4000 expeditions, 500,000 grass seeds and 654.38+500,000 invertebrates were collected. Generated hair

At present, in transgenic rape and beet fields, the number of weeds corresponds to the number of snails, beetles, butterflies and other animals.

Traditional farmland is much less, but the situation in corn field is just the opposite. Considering the ecological environment, before ensuring the output,

By the way, it is better to have more weeds and bugs. So what does this test result mean? Report release

The next day, several major newspapers in Britain made headlines with it. The Independent and the Daily Mail

For example, this "sounded the death knell of genetically modified crops", The Guardian published a cartoon "Summer in Eden".

Eva looked at the apples on the tree and said to the snake, "Well, as long as it's not genetically modified." But the Daily Telegraph didn't.

I don't think this shows the prospect of biological catastrophe. I think the root of anti-GM sentiment lies in the fear of new things.

Things. Friends of the Earth called this a "black warning to the English countryside". But supporters believe that,

This shows that if properly managed, genetically modified crops can benefit the environment.

In this regard, Lord May 10, President of the Royal Society, said in October that both sides who support and oppose genetically modified crops put

The result of this experiment is interpreted as beneficial to oneself, "selective and biased", and both sides say it is themselves.

Won. He said that experiments actually show that genetically modified agriculture can be more beneficial to biodiversity than traditional agriculture.

It may be worse, depending on the specific use. It is a pity to simply say that genetic modification is good or bad.

It's too simple. The impact of agriculture on wildlife lies not in genetic modification itself, but in farming methods.

Such as the strategy of using herbicides. Everyone should turn their attention from genetic modification to wider agriculture.

Industry issues, and jointly explore the future development direction of modern agriculture. It sounds like 50 boards each, but,

Touch carefully. This is a very clever wording.

Both the scientific community and the government supported it, but many people opposed it, and finally the legislation was passed. This example is in Britain.

Not without it: At the end of 2000, the House of Commons passed a bill, which was the first European country to allow users.

Such as early embryonic stem cells for medical research. In protecting scientific research activities, especially biological and medical research,

Blair has always been tough, destroying genetically modified experimental fields and attacking medical laboratories for some people.

He said angrily that he would never tolerate interference in legitimate scientific research. However, the commercial cultivation of genetically modified crops

It is more about economy than science. The Prime Minister has offended the domestic public a lot in the Iraq war.

Will the fate of genetic modification be like the stem cell bill or like the euro? This is not good enough.

Go ahead.